In short people don't care. Companies take the right away w/o a fight since they gain something, and most users don't since they don't like modifying tech. Your questions is like asking is it moral to kill bugs. In the end it's convience not morals that win something like this. It just aint convient to fight corporations, or learn to live with bugs.
Very true, grades aren't the optimal method of determining skill, but they are one of the better methods of measuring a persons masochism (er... how determined you are academically). Knowing a student has the patience to do things he may dislike or outright hate is an important factor, hell may be the most important factor if you want measure someone by their earning potential only.
While I disgree with abolishing compulsory education in high school, I'd support giving high school students the same freedoms college students enjoy (study what you want to, set your own schedule, etc). Mostly because my experience as a teen makes me think most teenagers are horny and don't like schoolwork. They do however like freedom and the option to not take classes they hate.
Tivo legally limited hardware they owned, and people willingly bought this legal object. In that case you've lost the right to say I want xyz in my widget. That comes before the purchase.
Eh, maybe I should've said resources instead since that could've included humans. Still, how is it easy (cheap and w/o hassle) to send stuff into orbit?
Antarctica, or Devon Island may be closer, but I wouldn't want to fund a Martian presence unless I knew we had experience with creating building in surfaces that are equal to, or worse than Mars in some way. Not to mention it'll give practical experience surviving on a planet(oid) with limited resources, can only help if a space station starts to have issues, etc.
You don't think being able to send materials into orbit easily, and knowledge of how to build and maintain things on hostile surfaces isn't stepping stones?
While asking questions is the lazy route, there's nothing wrong with it. After all who said you have to answer?
Not knowing about money orders or cashier's checks is ignorant, not stupid unless you think knowing about them requires some mental exercise. His question was basically what do I do if a place doesn't accept cash, vitually the same as your own reworded question. I see nothing in either there that would inspire discussions on privacy, anonymity, etc, unless simply mentioning banks and credit cards invoke some primal urge to talk about the three (heck it might this is/.).
Like I said his question shows how (disturbingly) ignorant and/or sheltered the person is/was to the outside world, but the whole give up you're too dumb was uncalled for, especailly since it'll take 5min of reading slashdot, or other sites to figure out what to do in his life in terms of cash. A give up you're too lazy might apply though.
While I do agree the question is dumb, I refuse to believe you never asked/researched what others might consider dumb questions. I do however think this question really does not belong on slashdot.
Well education videos would need high quality verifications. But I don't see why all that is needed in web videos which is mostly entertainment based. As another person said captioning (and translating to boot) is done all the time in the anime subtitling groups. They do it only for free, and the quality is usually decent.
Kind of funny aint it? On the flip side if the U.S started putting more efforts into education and stopped trying to shape the world so much it could probably keep it's lead as the major world power. So... in the end it's just a rush to whoever loses their neurosis first eh lol?
Irrelevant, I too want to change copyright laws but simply stating well my morals say infringing is a'ok gets you nowhere, you have to consider and hopefully change the laws. For starters you probably want to change the minds of people who's morals agree with those laws.
Ah, even better! Now anyone important using truecyrpt can't be released until tortured to death. I mean if "The Man" can't be sure you've given them full access to your files what choice is there eh? Ya ya not too likely I suppose. If the government gets that desperate first order of things is to torture loved ones first.:P
Sorry, but the GBA pokemon games had groups who thought radically altering the land/water ratio of the planet was a good idea because "people would like it more" as villians. I'm not sure how such a... simple plot is not aimed for the kids.
Er... did ya check out the comparisons? As you can see here here jpeg at least can be compressed considerably with Stuffit. According to this the program can "(partially) decode the image back to the DCT coefficients and recompress them with a much better algorithm then default Huffman coding." I've no idea what that means, but it does seem to be more thorough and complex than what you wrote.
On the flip side however, some people who pirated a game would've bought it if the free option wasn't available. To say there's no concrete loss just cause it's not a 1 to 1 loss is way too simplistic imo.
While I doubt there's an evolutionary explaination for people believing in the divine I'd say there could be one for people having general faith. Afterall life is meaningless, or it's whatever you want it to be (to put it positivly). An ablity to go aginst ones rational brain, and do stupid things like say... figuring out how to live in uncomfortable climates because it's somehow better anyways, or perservering because of a cause/belief would be very useful.
Those are very interesting thoughts. From what I gather your stance is we're all cogs in the universal machine so know your place, pretty much another version of "what will be will be." I can dig these beliefs, I think you're coming from the we follow the same laws of nature, so we're one complex unit angle. I don't see how these thoughts are more rational and conducive towards satisfaction though. You mention a train of thoughts that'll lead to happiness, but every philosophy has that... still no unified law of contentment. I think satisfaction depends on the individual, but that another discussion. Also think that a sense of self is needed as long as were not in an Asimov Galaxia, or squished into a singularity again, but I think we may be using different definitions of self.
I'm not sure what you mean by unitary nature of reality. Dictionary.com says having to do with numbers, so you're saying the universe is finite? How did you conclude there's no outside of reality? There is the thought that if something is unknown it's better not to believe, but neither that or Pascal's wager is logical. Also think you're taking an extreme definition of external. Just because something is outside of something doesn't mean you can't affect it. I mean heck we use terms like "affected by external forces" all the time.
I'll just say the lines on eternal... also faith. I'm not even sure how you got eternal can't interact with the transient... unless you're saying eternal is unchanging. Guess that could make sense though I take the stance that something can be altered while still remaining the same in a basic sense.
Finally I'm not sure how you differentiate between faith, and theory. I mean since we've no tests for any of the things said, theory should mean opinion, speculation, aka faith here...
Good luck with your work.:) As a bio chem student though I've no idea what you said sencond to last, heh.
Your first paragraph makes little sense to me... I'm not seeing the connection between feeling seperate from the universe equals all the doubts humans have, frankly that just sounds like one of many religious hogwash to me. Your second paragraph makes some bold statements care to prove them?
Well then lets take the most optimistic example of faith without any evidence. There's an all powerful something that cares about all things. How is that bad?
I should've added worshipping or at least following an ideal in my second paragraph. Still following and sometimes fighting for an ideal makes more sense than say... who the latest savior is. On the other hand it does makes fights between opposing forces more common. In any case most of them want some degree of power. There's exception in both religious, and non religious groups of course.
I already mentioned faith when there's contrary evidence is bad, but how is all faith w/o evidence bad?
I can't agree with your second sentence. The good, and bad of religion comes from the unity worshiping a noun brings. No non-religious thing can mimic that w/o becoming a cult, and that's pretty much old skool religion; worshipping a human.
They're the same dude, they're all beliefs without evidence. You mention three rather "solid' faiths, how about the ones that lean more on the irrational side of things which many people (maybe you also) have. Existience of justice, objective morality, views on parenting, a notion that there's "more to life then this," love, etc. We have some odd faiths that we only really go for simply cause society tells us they exist, not due to any rational thought and they've nothing to do with orgainized religion (well unless you stretch the definition a bit)
What I think you're stating is when faith becomes organized, and big it goes bad (I apologize if I'm mistaken). To be fair I've heard no convincing defense against, or for orgainized religion. Sure you could point to bad, and good apples, but they're a minority. It really comes down to personal experience I suppose. Despite how silly it seems to me I see it's sum as a good thing, then again there's many folks who's experiences with it were far less... ideal to say the least.
You said "Almost by definition, a person has to mentally damaged in order to accept religion." You also said "Faith means accepting things without, or in fact despite any evidence. That is pretty much the definition of insanity." I said you were being narrow minded when you called something all humans have as a coping mechanism an aberrant state of mind. It's hardly insane when all humans have it, and can be considered a mostly good thing. Now you're changing your tune and saying faith is only bad when it hurts folks. Well... either way I'm glad we reached an agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
In short people don't care. Companies take the right away w/o a fight since they gain something, and most users don't since they don't like modifying tech. Your questions is like asking is it moral to kill bugs. In the end it's convience not morals that win something like this. It just aint convient to fight corporations, or learn to live with bugs.
Very true, grades aren't the optimal method of determining skill, but they are one of the better methods of measuring a persons masochism (er... how determined you are academically). Knowing a student has the patience to do things he may dislike or outright hate is an important factor, hell may be the most important factor if you want measure someone by their earning potential only.
While I disgree with abolishing compulsory education in high school, I'd support giving high school students the same freedoms college students enjoy (study what you want to, set your own schedule, etc). Mostly because my experience as a teen makes me think most teenagers are horny and don't like schoolwork. They do however like freedom and the option to not take classes they hate.
Tivo legally limited hardware they owned, and people willingly bought this legal object. In that case you've lost the right to say I want xyz in my widget. That comes before the purchase.
Eh, maybe I should've said resources instead since that could've included humans. Still, how is it easy (cheap and w/o hassle) to send stuff into orbit?
Antarctica, or Devon Island may be closer, but I wouldn't want to fund a Martian presence unless I knew we had experience with creating building in surfaces that are equal to, or worse than Mars in some way. Not to mention it'll give practical experience surviving on a planet(oid) with limited resources, can only help if a space station starts to have issues, etc.
You don't think being able to send materials into orbit easily, and knowledge of how to build and maintain things on hostile surfaces isn't stepping stones?
...Grandparent mentions milestones we should overcome before attempting human mars landings.
"We don't even have casual trips to orbit, much less the moon, much less significant space stations, and much, much less Mars."
He's definetly not advocating doing nothing, just focusing on the stepping stones first and I agree.
While asking questions is the lazy route, there's nothing wrong with it. After all who said you have to answer?
/.).
Not knowing about money orders or cashier's checks is ignorant, not stupid unless you think knowing about them requires some mental exercise. His question was basically what do I do if a place doesn't accept cash, vitually the same as your own reworded question. I see nothing in either there that would inspire discussions on privacy, anonymity, etc, unless simply mentioning banks and credit cards invoke some primal urge to talk about the three (heck it might this is
Like I said his question shows how (disturbingly) ignorant and/or sheltered the person is/was to the outside world, but the whole give up you're too dumb was uncalled for, especailly since it'll take 5min of reading slashdot, or other sites to figure out what to do in his life in terms of cash. A give up you're too lazy might apply though.
While I do agree the question is dumb, I refuse to believe you never asked/researched what others might consider dumb questions. I do however think this question really does not belong on slashdot.
Well education videos would need high quality verifications. But I don't see why all that is needed in web videos which is mostly entertainment based. As another person said captioning (and translating to boot) is done all the time in the anime subtitling groups. They do it only for free, and the quality is usually decent.
Kind of funny aint it? On the flip side if the U.S started putting more efforts into education and stopped trying to shape the world so much it could probably keep it's lead as the major world power. So... in the end it's just a rush to whoever loses their neurosis first eh lol?
Tch, now you really don't need those hundreds of terrabytes of masturbatory fantasies right?
Irrelevant, I too want to change copyright laws but simply stating well my morals say infringing is a'ok gets you nowhere, you have to consider and hopefully change the laws. For starters you probably want to change the minds of people who's morals agree with those laws.
Ah, even better! Now anyone important using truecyrpt can't be released until tortured to death. I mean if "The Man" can't be sure you've given them full access to your files what choice is there eh? Ya ya not too likely I suppose. If the government gets that desperate first order of things is to torture loved ones first. :P
It's... disturbing when what should be common sense is modded +3 insightful. Incidentally, whoever says "you must be new here" get's cursed. :)
Sorry, but the GBA pokemon games had groups who thought radically altering the land/water ratio of the planet was a good idea because "people would like it more" as villians. I'm not sure how such a... simple plot is not aimed for the kids.
Er... did ya check out the comparisons? As you can see here here jpeg at least can be compressed considerably with Stuffit. According to this the program can "(partially) decode the image back to the DCT coefficients and recompress them with a much better algorithm then default Huffman coding." I've no idea what that means, but it does seem to be more thorough and complex than what you wrote.
Hmm... very interesting though not too surprising imo. Can you supply a source?
On the flip side however, some people who pirated a game would've bought it if the free option wasn't available. To say there's no concrete loss just cause it's not a 1 to 1 loss is way too simplistic imo.
While I doubt there's an evolutionary explaination for people believing in the divine I'd say there could be one for people having general faith. Afterall life is meaningless, or it's whatever you want it to be (to put it positivly). An ablity to go aginst ones rational brain, and do stupid things like say... figuring out how to live in uncomfortable climates because it's somehow better anyways, or perservering because of a cause/belief would be very useful.
Those are very interesting thoughts. From what I gather your stance is we're all cogs in the universal machine so know your place, pretty much another version of "what will be will be." I can dig these beliefs, I think you're coming from the we follow the same laws of nature, so we're one complex unit angle. I don't see how these thoughts are more rational and conducive towards satisfaction though. You mention a train of thoughts that'll lead to happiness, but every philosophy has that... still no unified law of contentment. I think satisfaction depends on the individual, but that another discussion. Also think that a sense of self is needed as long as were not in an Asimov Galaxia, or squished into a singularity again, but I think we may be using different definitions of self.
:) As a bio chem student though I've no idea what you said sencond to last, heh.
I'm not sure what you mean by unitary nature of reality. Dictionary.com says having to do with numbers, so you're saying the universe is finite? How did you conclude there's no outside of reality? There is the thought that if something is unknown it's better not to believe, but neither that or Pascal's wager is logical. Also think you're taking an extreme definition of external. Just because something is outside of something doesn't mean you can't affect it. I mean heck we use terms like "affected by external forces" all the time.
I'll just say the lines on eternal... also faith. I'm not even sure how you got eternal can't interact with the transient... unless you're saying eternal is unchanging. Guess that could make sense though I take the stance that something can be altered while still remaining the same in a basic sense.
Finally I'm not sure how you differentiate between faith, and theory. I mean since we've no tests for any of the things said, theory should mean opinion, speculation, aka faith here...
Good luck with your work.
Your first paragraph makes little sense to me... I'm not seeing the connection between feeling seperate from the universe equals all the doubts humans have, frankly that just sounds like one of many religious hogwash to me. Your second paragraph makes some bold statements care to prove them?
Well then lets take the most optimistic example of faith without any evidence. There's an all powerful something that cares about all things. How is that bad?
I should've added worshipping or at least following an ideal in my second paragraph. Still following and sometimes fighting for an ideal makes more sense than say... who the latest savior is. On the other hand it does makes fights between opposing forces more common. In any case most of them want some degree of power. There's exception in both religious, and non religious groups of course.
I already mentioned faith when there's contrary evidence is bad, but how is all faith w/o evidence bad?
I can't agree with your second sentence. The good, and bad of religion comes from the unity worshiping a noun brings. No non-religious thing can mimic that w/o becoming a cult, and that's pretty much old skool religion; worshipping a human.
They're the same dude, they're all beliefs without evidence. You mention three rather "solid' faiths, how about the ones that lean more on the irrational side of things which many people (maybe you also) have. Existience of justice, objective morality, views on parenting, a notion that there's "more to life then this," love, etc. We have some odd faiths that we only really go for simply cause society tells us they exist, not due to any rational thought and they've nothing to do with orgainized religion (well unless you stretch the definition a bit)
What I think you're stating is when faith becomes organized, and big it goes bad (I apologize if I'm mistaken). To be fair I've heard no convincing defense against, or for orgainized religion. Sure you could point to bad, and good apples, but they're a minority. It really comes down to personal experience I suppose. Despite how silly it seems to me I see it's sum as a good thing, then again there's many folks who's experiences with it were far less... ideal to say the least.
You said "Almost by definition, a person has to mentally damaged in order to accept religion." You also said "Faith means accepting things without, or in fact despite any evidence. That is pretty much the definition of insanity." I said you were being narrow minded when you called something all humans have as a coping mechanism an aberrant state of mind. It's hardly insane when all humans have it, and can be considered a mostly good thing. Now you're changing your tune and saying faith is only bad when it hurts folks. Well... either way I'm glad we reached an agreement.